Template talk:Defwarn

Format

The pattern of bolded text makes this warning extremely hard to read. To me, that also makes it hard to take seriously. Would anyone object if we tone down the bolding? A lot? Rossami (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats

Isn't this rather in conflict with Wikipedia:No legal threats? I have just encountered a content dispute that was escalated wildly by the use of this template. —Centrx→talk • 04:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how the template is used, and how the template worded it. If it's used politely, then it wouldn't violate WP:LEGAL. I personally prefer if such a disclaimer was added back in, even if it has to be toned down. I use defwarn on anonymous users who vandalize Skutt Catholic High School only because it is most appropriate: The subject of that article is known to sue such vandals. Tuxide 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: The new defamatory templates ({{uw-defamatory1}}, {{uw-defamatory2}}, {{uw-defamatory3}}, {{uw-defamatory4}}, and {{uw-defamatory4im}}) resolve my issue. Also, another note is that {{defwarn}} is no longer listed on WP:UTM. Regards, Tuxide 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]